Can the Church change its teaching?

[surritter]

Adam, in fact, is in paradise right now. That makes it hard for me to justify damning infants for something that they did not do (and are literally incapable of), when the perpetrator has already been forgiven.

Does that answer your question?

Not really. I don’t think your last sentence is in line with the constant teaching of the Church (East or West, although not 100% sure about the East).
Now, perhaps I am unconsciously using terms that are unique to the Latin Church – sorry about that. But I can put it this way: the reason Adam is in heaven is that he repented before he died! Yet notice that his repentance did not undo the fact that his progeny were born with some sort of defect. I think we both agree on that. We diverge in that you believe that the defect does not affect a person’s nature; that is, his direct relationship with God – you believe the defect to be merely a tendency to future sin once the child is at the age of reason. Catholics believe that the defect we are born with is twofold: it is a stain on the person’s nature, and even when that stain is removed by baptism, the effects such as concupiscence still remain.

To become a member of the church (join the Body of Christ) requires the three sacraments of Baptism, the Holy Eucharist and Confirmation, or at the very least Baptism. We are saved in community (one will hear/read this concept also in Catholic circles).

I think there is a question here over the nature of church, and I myself cannot address it adequately, but I think it is fair to say that the church itself is superseded in the afterlife, at least theoretically. In other words, at the last judgment bishops will not be standing in front of God as our bishops, they will be ordinary men.

The 266 or so Popes will not be standing before God as Peter, but as themselves. There will be no need for ‘church’ as such, because we will be in the Presence. There will be no divisions among us, aside from that division between the sheep and the goats.

There will be no further mediation in the sense that we need it here and now, for we will be participating in the one timeless celestial divine liturgy with God, praising Him like the angels.

At least, this my poor understanding of these things.

I agree with this, except for a minor point about the Church being “superseded” in the afterlife. Perhaps the trappings of the institution will fade away, but Catholics see the Church as the bride of Christ, and She will be forever intertwined with Him. But we can set that part of the discussion aside…

You may see that I broke out your two points. I think that we may not be thinking of grace in the same manner. I would say that to be in the Body of Christ is to be in the church, to keep it simple.

If I accept and use your terminology and definition I could say that to be in the church is to be filled with sacramental grace, but we both know that we can lose this, don’t we? Losing this grace does not mean that we are actually necessarily out of the church, but it can indicate that we’ll lose our salvation.

I can agree with number two.

I find number one lacking. If you said “the stain of Original Sin is equivalent to the wound in our human nature” I think I might agree.

Grace is God.

The term “baptismal Grace,” also appropriately called “ecclesial Grace,” helps one to keep in mind an important distinction in the way God relates to those within the Church. Thus, Holy Baptism is the Mystery by which a person is incorporated into Christ, which is His Body, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23).22

Yes, I suppose I was too hasty in my terminology. One can commit a mortal sin and lose sacramental grace, yet still be a member of the Church. Now, let’s examine your statement that “the stain of Original Sin is equivalent to the wound in our human nature.” I would agree with that on the surface, but I know that we would differ on the definition of the “wound in our nature.” Put simply, if an infant died without baptism, is that “wound” something that would keep him out of heaven? You would say no. But this again equates to a belief that baptism is not regenerative – in effect you are saying that we are all born as citizens of heaven (as it were), and at the age of reason we may begin to commit such sins as to damage our relationship with God.

Now, I too think it is unfair for God to condemn infants who are incapable of personal sin. But we have the Scriptures and the constant teaching of the Church to guide us in the understanding of original sin. The idea of limbo is a way around the unfairness factor, but I’m not completely sold on that – I think at this point we simply entrust these infants to the love of God.

 

[surritter]

Okay then what conclusion did you come up with. Did Jesus Baptise him at the foot of the Cross yes or no? Prove it next. Did Jesus say to him from this day on you will be with me in paradise? Yes or No? How was that possible then, My only conclusion is the same that the RCC teaches. With Gods mercy all things are possible.

Now to say that there is no way that a baby can not enter heaven w/o baptism adds to the word of God does it not.

But to say that all things are possible with Gods mercy is pretty in line with scripture is it not?

Did the CHurch ever deny Baptism, never it teaches it! But did the Church ever deny Gods mercy again, never it teaches it!

Relax, Rinnie, I agree completely with you. My post was intended to caution Hesychios that you can’t always draw absolute conclusions from one particular passage, even though I agree with his premise that baptism is not an absolute necessity. (However, if you read the other posts of Hesychios, you will see that his ideas do not mesh with the Catholic Church’s understanding of baptism.)

So like you, I state that Jesus could operate outside of the norm and yes, the good thief is in paradise. In nearly every post (here and in another thread about limbo) I’ve been saying your same message: God is not bound to the sacraments – He may in His mercy do anything.

Sorry that I caused confusion.

 

[rinnie]

Relax, Rinnie, I agree completely with you. My post was intended to caution Hesychios that you can’t always draw absolute conclusions from one particular passage, even though I agree with his premise that baptism is not an absolute necessity. (However, if you read the other posts of Hesychios, you will see that his ideas do not mesh with the Catholic Church’s understanding of baptism.)

So like you, I state that Jesus could operate outside of the norm and yes, the good thief is in paradise. In nearly every post I’ve been saying your same message: that God is not bound to the sacraments – He may in His mercy do anything.

Sorry that I caused confusion.

Sorry surritter if you thought I was not relaxed I am responding in a cool charitable manner, if it looks otherwise may I apologize ahead of time.

But on the other side of the Coin do I believe Baptism is necessary. I DO!! And n that account I do no actually disagree with Hesychios:blush:

But where I disagree with him is when can it happen! See what I mean, Like I said earlier and no one addressed it, who is to say that Jesus can give the authority to Priests to do the sacraments in his name here, but then Jesus the Man who wrote the book cannot exercise that Power where, and when he chooses. See what I am saying.

I am not disagreeing with Baptism, neither does the Church, but God can exercise his Mercy whenever, and whereever he chooses to do it. Rather it is inside of our time or outside of it.

Thats the point I am trying to convey. Because yes baptism is a sacrament and was instituted by Christ, and we must follow his commands. But there are times it is not in our power to follow his commands. As in my case which I stated earlier. God cannot hold us to something that we have no control over. He can and will with his Love and Mercy step in and make all things right. See what I am saying?

 

[rinnie]

Here is another thought in line with Catholic teaching.

Jesus saved the Blessed Mother at the moment of her conception. So she was Baptised correct? Is not being saved from Original sin what we call Baptism.

Now we are taught for a fact that the Blessed Mother was Saved from Sin before she was ever born into this world. Then would that not be another good example that a baby could be also?

 

[simple_soul]

Let’s wait a minute here, before we say some things that are not charitable. I remember when the Theological Commission was commissioned to do exactly what they did. They were commissioned to do this by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. In fact, when we read the document and the bibliography we find that the Sacred Congregation for the Faith had (name removed by moderator)ut on the final draft. Under Cardinal Ratzinger’s watchful eye, the document was reviewed and there were points deleted and other points added by the Sacred Congregation. These points are referenced at the end of the document. They were also asked to make sure that they referenced every statement using on-going Church teaching and they did. Those references are also at the end of the document and the footnotes are embedded in the document itself.

The Commission did act authoritatively. They were authorized by the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation of the Faith to do what they did. The reason that the document appears on the Vatican website is because it received the approval of both pope and sacred congregation. Therefore, there is nothing in the document or about it that is either wrong, contrary to teaching or Protestant.

Sometimes theologians of different faiths use the same methodology, but that does not make a Catholic theologian Protestant or a Protestant theologian Catholic. Theology is an academic discipline with many methodologies, like any other discipline. These methodoloies can be used by theologians of every faith. That does not guarantee that they will reach the same conclusion. The conclusion does not depend solely on the method being used, but also on the subject and the faith of the theologian.

I would appeal to everyone that we be very gentle and cautious when makiong statements about Church documents that we may find uncomfortable, because many of them were authorized by popes and congregations and have received their approval, even if they don’t receive our assent.

I go back to the same point, trust. We have to trust the Church. Their are no recorded instances where the Church set out to do harm or to teach error. Individuals are another story. But these are documents that are reviewed by people who have earned our respect and trust, in this case John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Dear Br JR,

Thank you so much for responding to this. Why is it so hard to just trust?

 

[surritter]

Sorry surritter if you thought I was not relaxed I am responding in a cool charitable manner, if it looks otherwise may I apologize ahead of time.

But on the other side of the Coin do I believe Baptism is necessary. I DO!! And n that account I do no actually disagree with Hesychios:blush:

But where I disagree with him is when can it happen! See what I mean, Like I said earlier and no one addressed it, who is to say that Jesus can give the authority to Priests to do the sacraments in his name here, but then Jesus the Man who wrote the book cannot exercise that Power where, and when he chooses. See what I am saying.

I am not disagreeing with Baptism, neither does the Church, but God can exercise his Mercy whenever, and whereever he chooses to do it. Rather it is inside of our time or outside of it.

Thats the point I am trying to convey. Because yes baptism is a sacrament and was instituted by Christ, and we must follow his commands. But there are times it is not in our power to follow his commands. As in my case which I stated earlier. God cannot hold us to something that we have no control over. He can and will with his Love and Mercy step in and make all things right. See what I am saying?

Yes, I see and agree.

I simply said that I do not believe that baptism is an absolute necessity, because that absolutism would shut out God’s ability to operate outside the sacraments. The absolutists are the ones who flock to the theory of limbo.

 

[JReducation]

*Dear Br JR,

Thank you so much for responding to this. Why is it so hard to just trust?

Post 738, 742 and 750 all contain valuable statements by credible men: John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. If we believe that they are in error, the burden of proof is on us, not on them. They have proven to the Church and to the world that:

• they are excellent theologians.
• they are faithful to the teachings of the Church
• they understand what came before
• they are personally holy men who are not out to do damage
• they know the difference between what the Church has held and what the Church has defined.
• they have not changed anything that the Church has defined.

If people have trouble trusting, the burden is on the person to challenge them, not to denounce their writings without knowing what came before or what was behind the writing. If there is one thing that all of us should have learned in school was never to read any work without understanding its context, because you run the risk of either misunderstanding it or missing the wealth that it contains and the hidden messages. The writings of the Church also have a context and have nuances.

I will also add this. I understand the difficulty that some people have with some of the statements that have come from Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, either as pope or as the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation. Many people have been hurt and disappointed at the local level of the Church. They have seen bad catechesis, bad theology, bad liturgy and so forth. They become gun-shy when something sounds strange. I believe that part of what happens when one is hurt and disappointed is that one tends to become over vigilant.

Being vigilant is good. But we can go to the extreme of being over vigilant. I would say that given the facts that I have pointed out about Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as popes and as theologians, we are being over vigilant. Both of these men are very credible because of their knowledge and because of their holiness.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I see and agree.

I simply said that I do not believe that baptism is an absolute necessity, because that absolutism would shut out God’s ability to operate outside the sacraments. The absolutists are the ones who flock to the theory of limbo.

I would rephrase that to say that baptism of water is not the only means by which man is brought into communion with the Church. But as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI agree, some men participate in baptism through their on-going search for God and holiness. Those who were never born and were unable to be baptised through no fault of their own, enjoy the mercy of God who cannot be hand-cuffed to operate as we want him to operate.

Then I would add that we not forget that the mercy of God is a dogma. Limbo is not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello brother,

I’m not discounting your overall point, but a single conclusion can’t always be drawn from a given passage.

Just to make it clear, I am not attempting to use a single passage to prove a point. Just to illustrate how vague the scriptural evidence actually is.

I also understand and respect your opinion. We are not going to agree, and that’s OK, but by illustrating the Orthodox mindset on these points I was hoping that we can see the broad range of opinion within Apostolic Christianity on the purpose behind and need for Baptism.

I also contend (you need not agree, it’s just ‘run up the flagpole’ ) that the Orthodox position is the older, and more universally held position before Augustine’s theory (which seems to have taken the Latin church by storm at some point, and been reinforced by local and General Councils in the west later).

If I am correct, the theory that infants are damned if not baptized is itself a development, and not 2000 years old as has been suggested here.

I sympathize with Rinnie’s position, but I disagree with her opinion that the church is ‘developing’ a better understanding of salvation for the innocent. (I also personally feel that such big swings in ‘development of doctrine’ are unnecessary and dangerous so many centuries after Christ). If I am correct, this ‘new’ understanding is not a development at all, but a return to the original Latin Catholic understanding.

Thus, it seems to me this represents not (as our brother Sidbrown seems to think) one change in the church’s teaching, but actually two: There and back again.

Hopefully we all can agree to disagree on these points and remain friends.

BTW, I am hoping not to be involved much in this thread from this point (I am far too busy), I simply enjoyed the dialog and all the well crafted posts from everyone here. The high level of discourse with charity is heartwarming!

 

[una_fides]

Here is the basis for the position that the process is guided by the Holy Spirit and free of error. Which is what we understand as infallible. Though there are two kinds of papal infallibility, but that’s a subject for another thread.

**In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” **

Having said that, the point is that you’re trying to find error in John Paul’s statement, when the Church found none. At some point, we have to trust the Church, in the case, a very large group of people with a lot of authority and knowledge.

If we begin to question every thing that comes out of the mouth of a pope, we can find ourselves not having a life. At some point, part of our gift is the gift of trust in God’s mercy that he will not lead us astray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So the authority on which you rely that the canonization process is infallible is St. Thomas Aquinas? I agree that he is the greatest doctor and theologian of the Church to which the Church has given more magisterial approval than any other. The only thing is I see a lack of consistency since it was the same Aquinas who taught that unbaptized infants cannot be saved. He also taught that it is not permissible to believe that everyone will be saved because as he explicitly taught “those who will be saved will be the minority.”

Also if JP2 can contradict the constant teaching of the Church that has not been infallibly defined, then why do you accept the opinion of Aquinas here as an infallible definition as to what is infallible? In other words, why do you trust that Aquinas got it right on the infallibility of the Church’s declaration of sainthood and yet believe that he must have been wrong about these other issues in which he was merely reiterating the Church’s constant teachings?

Furthermore, Aquinas did not teach that the entire canonization process itself was infallible–just the final result. Since JP2 is not yet a saint, the jury is still out as to his sainthood.

Lastly, I am not trying to find error in JP2’s statement(s). Again you are impugning my motives, and honestly you need to examine your conscience on this matter. Read the Faith Explained by Leo Trese pages 281-282. Just read this tonight in a discussion group. Found that we often sin through rash judgment by assuming a negative trait about a person unjustly. In this instance you continue to do so publicly. I realize you may not be doing this intentionally, but again I am not purposefully trying to attack JP2 here. I have tried to reconcile his teachings. I’ve made attempts. In some cases I can do it, but in others where it is obvious, it’s impossible. You can’t reconcile when someone says that people don’t necessarily go to hell with a dogmatic papal declaration condemning the notion that all Christians are saved. Again, if all Christians are not saved, then it becomes obvious that all humanity cannot be saved. One can try to reinterpret past teachings in order to try to justify present teachings, but doing so in some cases does serious damage to what has been previously intended to be taught and it’s interpreting the texts in a way that is contrary to how the Church has always understood it. You can understand that sense by studying what the Church has always taught on the matter throughout its history.

The conclusion that unbaptized infants can be saved was only believed by heretics, never Catholics, ever, in 2000 years of Church history. I understand that the Church today is non-infallibly and very mildly teaching that it’s possible they can be saved and is using some work around as if they can be saved through some sort of baptism of desire or suffering or some unknown baptism (again vague and no real substance or revelation to support the theory). But realize that if something has been taught with a greater degree of authority for 2000 years and now something new is being introduced with a very small degree of authority behind it comparatively and it contradicts what has been taught before, then to which view are we to ascribe? We are Catholic, so we must cling to tradition.
*-- "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).*

 

[una_fides]

Pelagianism, like a few other -ism’s is a slippery animal. Much is no longer known about it and we are not sure if what was condemned was what he taught. It is known that he faced examination in the east during his lifetime and no one condemned him then.

However I think I need to point out that the Pelagian errors were considered errors because it was attributed to him, or thought, that he definitively taught that the participation of God was not necessary to achieve salvation.

(I should point out that he was already dead by 431AD, and the condemnation was not high on the agenda. The Council was really interested in the Nestorius problem and the emperor proposed a condemnation of Pelagian errors.)

Augustine taught that all are damned because of Original Sin, and baptism removes that impediment. So by extension Augustine believes anyone who is unable to receive baptism to be seriously in trouble, salvation-wise. He is at least equally as wrong, both ‘positions’ are speaking in absolutes. Yet the Augustinian tradition tends to see the Council of Ephasus as reaffirming it’s own position, it does not.

Eastern Catholics (by which I mean Orthodox) never taught this idea of Augustine. Orthodox know that First (Original) Sin affects human nature (concupiscence - sounds very Catholic ) but it is not the primary reason one gets baptized.

Primarily one is baptized to die with Christ, and rise with Christ, and live a new life in Christ as a member of the church. It brings people into the church. The church is the instrument of God in this world.
The effects of First Sin, which is Adam’s sin, are not attributable to any person but Adam and so he would be the one roasting in hell for that particular sin.

Does baptism effect a forgiveness of sin?

Yes, it does. That is particularly helpful if you actually have sin to atone for.

Children who die before this Baptism is possible are taking a different path, they are no longer of this world and do not face the temptations and corruptions.

For people who live on, we know that the church is the necessary vehicle to achieve salvation, and the means to become part of the church are the three initiatory sacraments of Baptism, Holy Eucharist and Chrismation (Confirmation). We do all three.

We apply these three sacraments at the earliest possible age. Why? Because we can, and because we have always done so. We don’t need any other reason. We have always baptized the young as far as we know, we have always given them the Holy Eucharist and Confirmed them as infants. We don’t need, and did not develop a theory like belief in infant damnation to justify our practices.

Newborn babes who die straightaway, miscarried babes and the aborted are not assumed to have sinned in their own right, and are not automatically assumed to be damned. In the east they never were assumed to be damned, where do they go? Well, we don’t know for sure but we won’t put God in a box. So these infants are in the hands of God, in His judgment and His love.

I know that the Latin church has almost always (from a very early date) taught that these children are damned, but it was not the universal teaching of the church from the time we were all in communion with each other, and that is the only point I wish to make.

The most recent wording in the current catechism does seem like a change, it sounds very Orthodox.

You are rash in trying to assume that St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, was wrong on this issue. Do you have any General Council of the Church to support your decision??? If not, then you cannot be so certain now can you. The only thing we have is a general Council condemning a man as a heretic in union with the Council of Carthage and he denied that infants inherit the original sin of Adam. I would certainly not want to be Pelagian in my doctrine even if that particular proposition was not explicitly condemned in that council, as the proponent thereof was condemned and excommunicated and this teaching was in the list from Carthage as one of his errors.

You also contradict yourself in this post. You say that the Church is necessary for salvation. You say that one enters the Church through baptism. Yet you conclude somehow that it’s not necessary for an infant to be baptized to be saved? So you believe in salvation outside the Church???

Eastern Catholics did believe in original sin and its transmission of spiritual death to the descendants of Adam. I could demonstrate this with quotes from eastern fathers, but you would surely write them off or try to translate them or interpret them differently to fit your preconceived notion. One must be open to the truth and humbly be begging God for light from heaven, so that he can open his eyes.

(See my next post for some Scriptures)

 

[una_fides]

Here are some Scriptures:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Do you believe this death was just a physical death that passed upon all men?? If so, what was the death that Adam died when he ate from the tree? God told him that in the same day he ate from the tree he would surely die the death. Nevertheless, Adam lived to be many hundreds of years old. The death he and Eve died was a spiritual death. This is the same death that passed upon all men for in Adam we have all sinned.

Here’s a great commentary on this verse from Haydock:
Rom 5:12 As by one man…in whom [2] all have sinned. That is, in which man all sinned, (not in which death all sinned) as it must be the construction by the Greek text: so that these words are a clear proof of original sin against the Pelagian heretics, as St. Augustine often brings them. Nor does St. John Chrysostom deny original sin, though in this place he expounds it that all by Adam’s sin were made guilty of death and punishments. But how could they deserve these, had they not sinned in Adam? (Witham)
Here’s another Scripture:
Ephesians 2:1-5 And you, when you were dead in your offences and sins, Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: But God (who is rich in mercy) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved)
By what “nature” are we children of wrath? Our human nature. This same nature that because of concupiscence fulfills the will of the flesh. We have an inclination to sin as a part of our human nature. You do not need to teach someone how to sin. Children are born and grow up doing bad things naturally and must be corrected when they do bad things. Yes, some bad things are by imitation but others and the inclination to do the bad and to imitate evil behavior is by nature. Why do you think forbidden fruit appears so much more attractive to us? Anyway, concupiscence is another topic, the point is we are by nature children of wrath. We are born outside a state of sanctifying grace, lacking this special gift of God, which none of us deserve. God does not have to bestow sanctifying grace to anyone. You are not owed it. God freely gives it through his sacraments, but if you do not receive the sacrament, you haven’t been “cheated” by God because you did not deserve it and God was not obligated at all to give it to you. No one deserves eternal life and it is owed to no one.

 

[JReducation]

So the authority on which you rely that the canonization process is infallible is St. Thomas Aquinas? I agree that he is the greatest doctor and theologian of the Church to which the Church has given more magisterial approval than any other. The only thing is I see a lack of consistency since it was the same Aquinas who taught that unbaptized infants cannot be saved. He also taught that it is not permissible to believe that everyone will be saved because as he explicitly taught “those who will be saved will be the minority.”

Also if JP2 can contradict the constant teaching of the Church that has not been infallibly defined, then why do you accept the opinion of Aquinas here as an infallible definition as to what is infallible? In other words, why do you trust that Aquinas got it right on the infallibility of the Church’s declaration of sainthood and yet believe that he must have been wrong about these other issues in which he was merely reiterating the Church’s constant teachings?

Furthermore, Aquinas did not teach that the entire canonization process itself was infallible–just the final result. Since JP2 is not yet a saint, the jury is still out as to his sainthood.

Lastly, I am not trying to find error in JP2’s statement(s). Again you are impugning my motives, and honestly you need to examine your conscience on this matter. Read the Faith Explained by Leo Trese pages 281-282. Just read this tonight in a discussion group. Found that we often sin through rash judgment by assuming a negative trait about a person unjustly. In this instance you continue to do so publicly. I realize you may not be doing this intentionally, but again I am not purposefully trying to attack JP2 here. I have tried to reconcile his teachings. I’ve made attempts. In some cases I can do it, but in others where it is obvious, it’s impossible. You can’t reconcile when someone says that people don’t necessarily go to hell with a dogmatic papal declaration condemning the notion that all Christians are saved. Again, if all Christians are not saved, then it becomes obvious that all humanity cannot be saved. One can try to reinterpret past teachings in order to try to justify present teachings, but doing so in some cases does serious damage to what has been previously intended to be taught and it’s interpreting the texts in a way that is contrary to how the Church has always understood it. You can understand that sense by studying what the Church has always taught on the matter throughout its history.

The conclusion that unbaptized infants can be saved was only believed by heretics, never Catholics, ever, in 2000 years of Church history. I understand that the Church today is non-infallibly and very mildly teaching that it’s possible they can be saved and is using some work around as if they can be saved through some sort of baptism of desire or suffering or some unknown baptism (again vague and no real substance or revelation to support the theory). But realize that if something has been taught with a greater degree of authority for 2000 years and now something new is being introduced with a very small degree of authority behind it comparatively and it contradicts what has been taught before, then to which view are we to ascribe? We are Catholic, so we must cling to tradition.

             *-- "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).*

I have never assumed that Aquinas is infallible. The Church has not done so either. But this is one of Aquinas’ teachings that the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints holds to.

As far as the 2000 year teaching, as we have already establish the point has never been defined and the pope has all the right in the world to bring up the question again. Again, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are very credible people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

Here is what I don’t understand. The Church has always taught that no matter what we cannot be held accountable for something that we did not understand or have ever been taught. Yes or No?

Then how can a baby be held accountable for a sin that it does not understand?

You are asking the wrong question here. The baby is not being held personally guilty for Adam’s sin. That is not what the Church is teaching. The baby is born lacking sanctifying grace as a result of Adam’s sin. It is lacking a gift that is not rightfully its own. God does not owe us heaven!

From the infallible Council of Trent:**CHAPTER I
**
** THE IMPOTENCY OF NATURE AND OF THE LAW TO JUSTIFY MAN
**The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam,[3] having become unclean,[4] and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath,[5] as has been set forth in the decree on original sin,[6] they were so far the servants of sin[7] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent,[8] was by no means extinguished in them.
…
**CHAPTER III
WHO ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST
**
But though He died for all,[16] yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.
…
**CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
**
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

 

[una_fides]

The Church teaches and has always taught that we are accountable for our sin, and we must repent and confess.

The thief on the cross, did he repent and confess, yes he did, he did the best that he could with what he knew. Did he know when he said he deserved his punishment that he was wrong. Yes he did, he confessed. He showed even though he had done evil he was sorry. But what did the other thief do, he said if you are God turn us loose, he was not sorry for what he had done, he was only sorry he got caught. Big difference, So what did Jesus say when he asked Jesus to remember him? Jesus said yes. Which translates to you are forgiven. Jesus showed him Mercy. Which is exactly what the Church teaches. We can rely on Gods mercy.

The thief on the cross had faith in Christ.

The question that many refuse to accept here is can dogma be developed.

Dogma can be developed, but it cannot be changed nor can it be understood differently than before.
Vatican I – Infallible
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

The Pope is led by the Holy Spirit!.. How can we accept the teaching’s of Peter when he explained them all through the bible, and it has happened many of times. And then turn around and refuse to accept the teachings of Peter today???

The pope is also not infallible except under certain circumstances. The Spirit’s leading of a pope does not prevent him from error or even from embracing heresy. Pope Honorius I was condemned after his death as being a heretic and was excommunicated. Also realize the level of authority in which this teaching is currently being taught it much less than the degree of dogmatic binding of this doctrine throughout the centuries by many popes who were being led by the Holy Spirit. We know that God is truth, so the Holy Spirit cannot be contradicting himself now can he?

For those who do not understand Vatican II please go back and read it. The CHurch cannot and DOES NOT change the doctrines God has given it. Nor can it invent new ones which it has been accused of here. New beliefs are not invented but the obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are CLEARED UP.

If you think the beliefs can be reconciled, then please demonstrate. I don’t see how you can reconcile previous popes and catechisms saying that there is no other means except baptism in which an infant can be saved and that infants are incapable of baptism of desire with the teaching that now all of the sudden we can hope for their salvation. If this was the case, then the Church would have been teaching this from the beginning. If Christ taught that unbaptized infants could be saved, then why were the only ones who taught that condemned as heretics (Pelagians)? Why can we not find the Church fathers supporting this notion? Why has the Church constantly taught that this is an impossibility using the highest authority short of an infallible definition and just because it was not infallibly defined it can now somehow be called into question?

 

[una_fides]

He is basically inviting the man to become a disciple! Apparently this is one case where He was turned down, He could have used the “big guns”. He does not say, ‘be baptized to avoid the fires of hell because of Adam’s sin’ or anything like that. He simply states "You are lacking in one thing… " and that one thing is not baptism! He doesn’t qualify His promise with “by selling your possessions you can have eternal life, but without the Beatific Vision”, why is He holding back?

You can’t interpret Scriptures in a protestant fashion in only accepting some and not others. Christ also clearly taught as is recorded by St. John in Jesus’ words to Nicodemus that man must be born by water and of spirit or else he cannot enter heaven. “Truly truly I say to you, you must be born again.” They are both true. You also must realize that the Scriptures are not a complete account of everything that was said in every instance. That is why we have Tradition! St. John explains in the end of his gospel that he supposes all the books in the world could not contain all the teachings and works of Christ.

Why do we baptize? Because we have always baptized, Christ commanded us to, and so we will continue to do so. No need to “de-compile the program” to see what’s behind it. God is behind it.

God already told us why we baptize. “For the remission of sins.” To be born again. He also told us that unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The speculation that the reason we baptize is that baptism “washes away original sin, which can damn us or at the very least deny us a beatific vision” appears to be rather crude, and probably wrong.

On what basis and what authority are you making such a claim? Just because it seems “crude” to you it must be wrong? God does not owe you or anyone heaven no matter how good you are. It is a gift from God that we do not deserve. We all deserve hell for our sins. It is only on account of his mercy that any of us can be saved. We baptize to be placed into Christ, become incorporated into his death, to be born again and become new creations, to wash away our sins, … All of these reasons are explain in Scripture.

He never did say so, nor did Jesus say "I baptize you… ".
Again, ‘baptism of desire’ is not it. Jesus saved him from the fires of hell (which he seems to have deserved in his own right as ‘a thief’) because he was judged worthy by Jesus right then and there, that’s it.

It is clear you do not understand baptism of desire. I suggest reading up on this teaching some more.

 

[una_fides]

Then tell me this. About 4 years ago I lost a baby. I did not have a body to baptise because that baby was not even totally formed yet. According to the teaching’s of the Church that baby had a soul from the moment of conception. Now are you telling me that my baby has no way of getting into heaven by Baptsim of desire? I had every single baby of mine baptised at one week old. I know that my desire to have that Child baptised was enough for God.

I am sorry to hear about your loss. I know these things can be difficult and sensitive subjects for some who have emotions involved. In dealing with matters of theology it’s always important that we do our best to separate our emotions from what we are studying in order to try to be as objective as possible, but I realize in some cases that can be very difficult if not impossible. That said, it’s important I think to clarify that the Church even now is not claiming that we can have faith or that we can “know” that such a desire for the parent for the child is sufficient for the baby to receive baptism. It says we can only hope and entrust them to the mercy of God. Second, your baby I believe is in a place of perfect bliss, perfect natural happiness, a happiness that you and I will not know in this world as our happiness always fades and is temporary. That amazing place is limbo. At the end of time, we will realize that we had loved ones that died and went to hell. Will we feel cheated or feel bad in heaven? Not at all. The thoughts of them will never come to mind as we will be completely in God and will not be limited to our human deficient concepts of justice. We now tend to see sin as no big deal but to God it is so bad that he had to suffer and die in order to try to free us from it. God hates sin! It separates us forever from him. No one who dies and suffers in hell does so by accident or not through his own fault. That said, I do not believe babies suffer in hell.

Now another question for you, If what you say is true and in order to be baptised are you saying that child has to desire and readily accept the HS?

That’s not at all what I’m saying. You obviously have grossly misunderstood me if you could possibly conclude this. Can you point me to anything I specifically said that would lead you to believe that I think children have to themselves desire heaven? I said that children are incapable of baptism of desire (aka it’s not possible).

Because I was taught that we can do it for our infants? Could you explain that to me then, How can a infant make this conscious decision at one week old? Then you go on and say that Baptsim of desire is if the person was ignorant at the time, but in time would accept Jesus.

I think whoever told you that did so to make you feel better. I believe in limbo, that unbaptized children who die are much much better off than any of us are today.

Because you are not making sense here. I was told as soon as I had a child to give that soul to God. I was taught as a parent and God parent it was my duty to bring that child up in the Sacraments and Church until confirmation where at confirmation that child has a duty to obey the commandments of God on his own now. So something is very very wrong with what you are teaching, and what I have been taught all of my life in the Church.

This part of what you have been taught sounds right on to me!

 

[Hesychios]

It is clear you do not understand baptism of desire. I suggest reading up on this teaching some more.

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly well. I thought I made my position clear.

I just reject the concept outright as a fallacy.

If it is not an immersion in water with the proper formula, it’s just not a baptism. People using the term “baptism of desire” are just kidding themselves. What happens to them might be analogous to a baptism in your way of thinking, but it’s really not.

Go on and believe what you want on the subject.

 

[JReducation]

You are asking the wrong question here. The baby is not being held personally guilty for Adam’s sin. That is not what the Church is teaching. The baby is born lacking sanctifying grace as a result of Adam’s sin. It is lacking a gift that is not rightfully its own. God does not owe us heaven!

From the infallible Council of Trent

I’m going to offer a fraternal correction here and I hope that it will be taken in that spirit. Una fides, you keep referring to the Council of Trent as the infallible council. But we have already presented documentation in prior posts where both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have pointed out to points made by Trent that were not infallible.

There are two points that I’m trying to make here. The Council of Trent was not infallible. It made many infallible decreees, but not everything that came out of the Council was infallible. We should not refer to it an an infallible council, because it was not the case. No council has ever been infallible. Councils have made infallible statements. We have to separate the infallible ones from the authoritative statements, not covered by infallibility. I say authoritative, because they require assent of the faithful, until such time as either a pope or a council declares something different. We refer to certain councils as infallible, because they have issued infallible decrees, not because everything they taught is binding on the Church forever. No council has ever issued only infallible definitions. Even the infallible councils have proposed or posed teachings that were left open for future discussion, such as is this topic.

Second, we have posted many statements by John Paul II and Benedict XVI on this point. I don’t believe that anyone can help you. I find it sad, but I really don’t believe that you can be helped here. Because unless you accept the credibility and knowledge of these two men and the fact that they did not err, nor intended to do harm to the teachings of the Church, you will not assent to what they have said. What is unfortunate is that neither of them has made public the background for their statements. They rely on the trust of the faithful. But if you don’t trust that they are doing the right thing and saying the right thing and if you don’t believe that they know more theology, philosophy, scripture and Church history than we do, then no one can help you, not even them.

I have no idea where to go with this. Because it all boils down to the fact that you will not believe that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have the authority to restate this position, because it’s been around for several hundred years. But this position has never been defined as dogma. Even John Paul and Beendict have not defined their positions as dogma. What they have said is that the previous position does not work; therefore the discussion is open again.

You will not accept that John Paul II was found to be faithful to Church teachings on matters of doctrine and morals or he would not have been declared Venerable by a very intelligent and very orthodox pope. You seem to belief that there was either a modernist conspiracy to declare him Venerable or he made a mistake and they gave him a pass or they made a mistake in declaring that he never said or wrote anything in conflict with the faith and morals of the Church. Again, I can’t help you. Because these are the systems and the people on which most of us depend to interpret and clarify what has been taught in the past.

But I must give you a warning. Do not set your understanding of tradition as correct. Remember, we can all read what is in print. But that does not mean that we always understand what we are reading or the nuances. This is going to sound ridiculous, but it helps. The Church often writes in in a manner that is very difficult to read, because she uses words and phrases differently than do the people in the pews. She can describe a polar bear fishing, but instead of saying that. She’ll say something like the day chasing the night, because it’s a modality of speaking or writing theology at a given time in history. That’s why we have something called the Sacred Congregation for the Fatih, to translate all of this stuff into language that modern Catholics, especially modern theologians can work with it.

I have to add here, it was not uncommon for the Church to write for theologians rather than for the man in the pew. Given the limitations in communication of the past, most documents produced at councils were never going to be seen by the laity. They were going to be read by theologians and monks. Sometimes, they were allowed to be used in seminaries, but that was not common until after Vatican II when the formation programs began to insist on using unaltered copies of the originals. My point, these arguments on limbo, Original Sin and redemption were written for theologians. What John Paul and Benedict have tried to do is to simplify it for the lay person, the non-theologian, which includes most of the laity, most priests and more religious. Yes even priests and religious are included in this. Most priests and religious only study four years of theology. They are generalists in theology. They are not required to be theologians. They too depend on theologians to answer their questions and to translate or interpret Church documents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Poco]

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly well. I thought I made my position clear.

I just reject the concept outright as a fallacy.

I’m not saying you’re wrong here, exactly, but…

If it is not an immersion in water with the proper formula, it’s just not a baptism.

From St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”, Treatise on the Sacraments (QQ[60]-90)

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: “I will pour upon you clean water,” as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.

People using the term “baptism of desire” are just kidding themselves. What happens to them might be analogous to a baptism in your way of thinking, but it’s really not.

Go on and believe what you want on the subject.

Again, from St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”, Treatise on the Sacraments (QQ[60]-90)

And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Just a couple of items I came across!